Appendix a - Airport Hazards

APPENDIX A - AIRPORT HAZARDS

AIRPORT HAZARD REVIEWS

For this review only two airports are within a distance that may have effect on 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Pima County AZ 85705, the Tucson International Airport and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The ACUIZ and hazard zone maps are overviewed as a distance from the calculated 65 DNL effect.

https://maps.tucsonaz.gov/hcd/index_old.html City of Tucson Land Use Overlay Zones 10/18/16

http://www.travelmath.com/nearest-airport/Tucson,+AZ

Tucson International Airport has no flight restricted zones which affect 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson AZ 85705. The project site is 6.4 miles from the 65 DNL zone for Tucson International Air Port. The project site is north west of the area shown on the map below. Zone confirmations and distances from Google Maps.

http://tuspart150.com/pdf/pac1_5-21-09.pdf Prepared by Aviation Planning L&B

www.google.com/maps Calculated October 13, 2016

Davis Monthan Air Force Base no flight restricted zones which affect the project site. The project site is 2.7 miles from the 65 DNL zone for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. All flight patterns by design from this airfield are to the south of the City of Tucson so away from the project site. The project site is north west of the area shown on the map below.

https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/pdfs/PlanningAndDevelopment/dmjlusfeb04.pdf Prepared by: Parsons Engineering with The Maguire Company S’relli Consulting, LLC

www.google.com/maps Calculated October 13, 2016

APPENDIX B – COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES

Projects located in HUD Region IX (CA, AZ, NV, HI, Guam) have no coastal barrier resources.

https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/mapper.html 10/18/16

APPENDIX C – FLOOD INSURANCE

2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson Pima County AZ 85705. Zone X 04019C-1688 L 6/16/11. Location approximated with arrow on map.

APPENDIX D – AIR QUALITY

Air Quality Review

From: Richard Grimaldi To: Glenn Fournie Date: 10/4/2016 3:37 PM Subject: RE: Air Quality question Miracle Point apartments

Mr. Fournie Yes, this would be a blanket exemption for all the projects. Take care Richard Grimaldi Deputy Director Pima County Department of Environmental Quality 33 N. Stone Ave., Suite 700 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone (520) 724 7363 [email protected]

From: Glenn Fournie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 3:35 PM To: Richard Grimaldi Subject: RE: Air Quality question Miracle Point apartments

Mr. Grimaldi, thank you for the information. We do probably 10 similar affordable housing projects each year within the City of Tucson city limits. Is this a blanket exemption from conformity review for housing projects of this type or is this project specific? I can send a description of each project when they come up for environmental review for your review. sincerely, Glenn

Glenn Fournie Environmental Officer City of Tucson Housing and Community Development Department Phone: 520-837-5408 Cell: 520-576-8016 Fax: 520-791-5481 [email protected]

"No one that has served their country should be without a safe and secure home"

>>> Richard Grimaldi > 10/4/2016 3:16 PM >>> Mr. Fournie The project is located in an area that has an EPA approved Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for carbon monoxide. The Tucson Air Planning Area (TAPA) was classified by EPA as a maintenance area in 1996. In 2009, EPA approved a second 10 year maintenance period as an LMP and approves the plan for transportation conformity purposes. Under the EPA LMP policy, such an approval means that the Pima Association of Governments (PAG), the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration are required to satisfy the regional emissions analysis for CO under 40 CFR 93.118 and/or 40 CFR 93.119 in determining conformity of transportation plans and programs in the Tucson Air Planning Area (74 FR 67820 (December 21, 2009)). As part of the emission inventory for the LMP, nonroad emissions from construction were calculated and budgeted in the approved plan. As such, emissions from construction during this project are accounted for in the LMP and will not result in a violation of the CO standard. A specific conformity review is not required for this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Richard Grimaldi Deputy Director Pima County Department of Environmental Quality 33 N. Stone Ave., Suite 700 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone (520) 724 7363 [email protected]

From: Dustin Fitzpatrick Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:58 PM To: Richard Grimaldi >; Scott Porter > Subject: FW: Air Quality question Miracle Point apartments

Richard/Scott, The below email from a COT inspector has a request from the EPA to have him check with the local air quality district to see if his project requires a “conformity review”? I’ve never heard of such a request and plan to just tell him that COT limits are currently in compliance with the NAAQS. Thanks, Dustin From: Glenn Fournie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 1:19 PM To: Dustin Fitzpatrick Cc: Ramona Williams; Tracy Odishaw Subject: Air Quality question Miracle Point apartments

Dustin, thanks for your help. The more I dig into this the more confused I get. There will be no incinerator or other air polluting devices on site.

2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson Pima County AZ 85705. The planned project includes new construction of 34 one-bedroom and 6 two- bedroom single story units in an attached town house configuration, landscaped and fenced common areas, walkways, paved parking areas and a 2500 square foot community building. The average square footage of the one-bedroom units will be 650 square feet, the two-bedrooms 800 square feet. The project site is a vacant lot that has been cleared, graded, leveled for construction and sewer lines installed but not connected for a 46 unit townhouse project that was never built.

So if I'm reading this right City of Tucson (within City limits) is in a non-attainment maintenance status for carbon monoxide only.

Here are the comments from Kathleen McNulty at HUD Region IX for Air Quality. The EPA website for the attainment status is https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-national-area-and-county-level-multi-pollutant- information On that page under #2 are links to the attainment status for each criteria pollutant for every US county. The Tucson/Pima County SIP is at https://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/r9sips.nsf/Agency?ReadForm&count=500&state=Arizona&cat=Pima-Agency- Wide+Provisions. This housing project probably does not require a conformity review. You could email the air quality control district and ask if the project requires a conformity review and include the email as supporting documentation.

Glenn Fournie Environmental Officer City of Tucson Housing and Community Development Department Phone: 520-837-5408 Cell: 520-576-8016 Fax: 520-791-5481 [email protected]

ADEQ and Pima County Air Department sites for compliance have been reviewed and these agencies have no concerns about multi-family or small apartment complexes (under 100 units) development in existing residential areas changing or adversely impacting air quality control standards. ADEQ has no active impact sites in Tucson. Review of National Priority List sites for subject impact at http://www.cqs.com/super_az.htm with negative findings for the subject. The project is located within an "attainment" area, OR, if within a "non-attainment" area, conforms with the EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), per contact with the State Air Quality Management District or Board, AND the project requires no individual NESHAP permit or notification.

Return data from ADEQ/Pima County Department of Air Quality Concerning 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, 85705. Pima County reviews show the project area of 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona, 85705 on review date September 1, 2016 Is not found in the list of sites out of compliance with SIP.

Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and its predecessors have conducted air monitoring in the Tucson, Arizona area since the 1960's. PDEQ monitors ambient (outdoor) air pollutants at 17 monitoring stations located throughout eastern Pima County, including the Tucson metropolitan area and Green Valley. There are six principal pollutants, called “criteria” pollutants that are monitored in accordance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act. The NAAQS were established to protect public health and the environment from harmful levels of air pollution.

There are six air pollutants monitored by PDEQ which are: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb).

Closest monitoring site data to subject:

Status of reporting:

September 1, 2016 subject is not included in list of nonconforming sites.

APPENDIX E – COASTAL ZONES

Arizona has no coastal zones. October 18, 2016

https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/mapper.html 10/18/16

APPENDIX F – CONTAMINATION AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Toxins and Hazardous Materials Review for 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson Pima County AZ 85705. The Phase I environmental site assessment dated 12/23/15 by Western Technologies Inc. found no evidence of RECs, HRECs or VECs in connection with the property.

No facilities were found in the governmental databases regarding the subject property. It should be noted that these databases cover a time span primarily one month prior to the completion of this environmental review on September 1, 2016. Not all waste sites or spills may be indicated in these databases if they existed or occurred prior to the initialization of the database, and/or have not been included on the governmental databases. The following additional reviews support this report in concluding no adverse site conditions for toxins and hazardous materials.

US EPA DATA - no adverse impacts to subject within 1 mile radius http://www.epa.gov/region9/cleanup/arizona.html http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/sps/siteinfo.html http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm

National Priority List (NPL)/Superfund Sites Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Sites Emergency Response Notifications System (ERNS) Sites Hazardous Material Spills Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage and/or Disposal Facilities No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites (RFRAP) RCRA Large/Small Quantity Generators (RCRA LQG/SQG) RCRA Subtitle D Landfills

State Data -no adverse impacts to subject within 1/2 mile radius http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/hazwaste/index.html http://www.azdeq.gov/databases/lustsearch.html

Arizona Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (SWF) Arizona Hazardous Waste Sites (HWS) Registered Underground Storage Tanks (LRSTs) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LRSTs)

No impacts were found that would be adverse to use of funds for proposed new residential construction.

State and local Data - within 1/2 mile radius http://www.Pima.gov/emerg_mgt/hazmat_overview.aspx http://www.rtknet.org/db/erns/search

The most recent database search did not indicate any Hazardous Material Spills in the ERNS database impacting this subject area. The project is not in the vicinity of any hazardous operation involving explosive or flammable fuels or chemicals which exceed the following standards: explosion, .5 psi over pressure; fire to buildings, 10,000 BTU/ft (2) hr; fire to people in unprotected areas (i.e. outdoors), 450 BTU/ft (2) hr. The project is not in the vicinity of any known toxic chemicals or radioactive materials (within 1,200 yards) which would have a negative impact on residents

The conclusion was 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road is not adversely effected based on this threshold criteria after review of the Phase I environmental assessment and also independent area review of all known environmental registrations. The following is the NEPA ASSIST review and on site assessment for all registrations within 1/2 mile of the subject for hazardous placement: On September 1, 2016 indicated below are all environmental registration sites reviewed for possible toxic, flammable or explosive hazard to the subject.

The "Project Details" label on the map does not obscure any registration. Each location was site visited and a literature search completed for any potentially adverse environmental affect, with no findings of hazard or potential hazard to the subject:

2. Lube Pit Inc. 3260 N ORACLE RD, TUCSON, AZ 85705-3820 EPA FRS ID: 110002565812 ADEQ Registration Handler ID: AZ0001013853 has no 3 year history of violations, noncompliance or citations. No above ground storage seen outside existing buildings of 100 gallons or greater.

3. 310 W. Laguna And 320 W. Laguna - We located a Phase I Environmental Assessment completed 8/22/06 by City of Tucson in an agreement for Brownfield assessment with EPA. The finding at this site was no clean-up requirements. No findings of chemical or organic contaminations and no provisions for hazardous control at this site.

4. Several sites at this location: Tetra Corporation, 308 W GLENN, TUCSON, AZ 85705 EPA FRS ID: 110002582651; ARCO AM/PM #5944, ADEQ Handler ID: AZR000000547, 2800 N ORACLE RD, TUCSON, AZ 857054318; and, PRESTIGE STATION 5439, ADEQ Handler ID: AZR000041558, 2800 N ORACLE RD TANK AREA, TUCSON, AZ 85705. All 3 sites have no history of violations, non-compliance or clean up requirements. On-Site review at all 3 locations revealed no above ground storage external to any building of 100 gallons or greater. No noted storage of flammable or hazardous material. Regulatory Information Reviews for all sites:

Clean Air Act (CAA): No Violations Clean Water Act (CWA): No Violations Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): No Violations Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): No Violations Air Emissions Inventory (EIS): No Violations Greenhouse Gas Emissions (eGGRT): No Violations Toxic Releases (TRI): No Violations

Web site access verified October 13, 2016 https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=2940+N+Oracle+Road+85705

Alternative web site location https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Miracle Point Apartments IPaC Trust Resources Report Generated August 16, 2016 11:49 AM MDT, IPaC v3.0.8

This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project reviews that require U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service review or concurrence, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents page.

IPaC - Information for Planning and Conservation (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service environmental review process.

Table of Contents

IPaC Trust Resources Report ...... 1 Project Description ...... 1 Endangered Species ...... 3 Migratory Birds ...... 5 Refuges & Hatcheries ...... 9 Wetlands ...... 10

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resources Report

NAME Miracle Point Apartments

LOCATION Pima County, Arizona

DESCRIPTION Location: 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson Pima County AZ 85705. New construction of 34 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom single story units in an attached town house configuration, landscaped and fenced common areas, walkways, paved parking areas and a 2500 square foot community building. The average square footage of the one-bedroom units will be 650 square feet, the two-bedrooms 800 square feet. The construction site has been cleared, graded and prepped for construction. The site is on approximately 4 acres of vacant land that has previously been cleared, graded and leveled for construction. The east portion of the property of approximately 2.1 acres is zoned O-3 and the rest of the parcel is zoned C-2. These zones provide for general commercial uses that serve the community and region. Residential and select other agriculture, civic, recreational, and utility uses may also be permitted. Anticipated completion is prior to end of fiscal year June 30, 2017.

IPAC LINK https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ YHKMC-UGRIJ-A5BJE-53HQR-2HUHRI

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Contact Information Trust resources in this location are managed by: IPaC Trust Resources Report Project Description

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021-4915 (602) 242-0210

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 2 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species

Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

This USFWS trust resource report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents section.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.

A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the Regulatory Documents section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.

The list of species below are those that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in this location: Birds California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni Endangered CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B03X

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B074

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is proposed critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 3 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species

Mammals Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A040

Lesser Long-nosed Bat Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0AD Reptiles Northern Mexican Gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is proposed critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C04Q

Sonoyta Mud Turtle Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale Candidate CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C067

Critical Habitats There are no critical habitats in this location

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 4 IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds

Migratory Birds Birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Any activity that results in the take of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.[1] There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conservation measures.

1. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)

Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Year-round bird occurrence data http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp

The following species of migratory birds could potentially be affected by activities in this location:

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008

Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0JX

Bendire's Thrasher Toxostoma bendirei Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0IF

Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0IR

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 5 IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds

Blue-throated Hummingbird Lampornis clemenciae Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HA

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0NC

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering Common Black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0JE

Elegant Trogon Trogon elegans Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round Elf Owl Micrathene whitneyi Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0GV

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering Gila Woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0EH

Gilded Flicker Colaptes chrysoides Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0EG

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DV

Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G5

Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0J8

Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HQ

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 6 IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FY

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06S

Lucy's Warbler Vermivora luciae Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DL

Mccown's Longspur Calcarius mccownii Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HB

Northern Beardless-tyrannulet Camptostoma imberbe Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0ER

Rufous-crowned Sparrow Aimophila ruficeps Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0MX

Rufous-winged Sparrow Aimophila carpalis Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD

Sonoran Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia ssp. sonorana Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F7

Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0GD

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B070

Varied Bunting Passerina versicolor Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 7 IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 8 IPaC Trust Resources Report Refuges & Hatcheries

Wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries There are no refuges or fish hatcheries in this location

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 9 IPaC Trust Resources Report Wetlands

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

DATA LIMITATIONS The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

DATA EXCLUSIONS Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

DATA PRECAUTIONS Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

There are no wetlands in this location

8/16/2016 11:49 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 10 APPENDIX H – EXPLOSIVE AND FLAMABLE HAZARD

Explosive and Flammable Hazards Review for 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Pima County AZ 85705

Site visit by Glenn Fournie, Project Coordinator for the City of Tucson Housing and Community Development staff 2/19/16 found there were no above ground storage tanks or facilities that engage in hazardous operations within line of sight of the project site. A copy of the site visit report is available in Attachment X - Environmental Assessment Factors.

The conclusion was 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road is not adversely effected after review of the Phase I environmental assessment, site visit and independent area review of all known environmental registrations. The project is not in the vicinity of any hazardous operation involving explosive or flammable fuels or chemicals.

State Data -no adverse impacts to subject within 1/2 mile radius http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/hazwaste/index.html http://www.azdeq.gov/databases/lustsearch.html

Arizona Municipal Solid Waste Facilities (SWF) Arizona Hazardous Waste Sites (HWS) Registered Underground Storage Tanks (LRSTs) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LRSTs) State and local Data - within 1/2 mile radius http://www.Pima.gov/emerg_mgt/hazmat_overview.aspx http://www.rtknet.org/db/erns/search APPENDIX I – FARMLANDS AND SOILS

All zone types requested and this area (subject) is considered “Rangeland” and not protected farmland. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Link verified October 13, 2016.

APPENDIX J – FLOOD INSURANCE

FEMA SOURCE for 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road Outside all 100 year flood plain effect. Zone X 04019C-1688 L 6/16/11. Location approximated with arrow on map.

A CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY OF 2.1 ACRES AT THE CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND BLACKLIDGE DRIVE, TUCSON, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA The Miracle Pointe Apartments Survey City of Tucson Project No. 16-14

Prepared by: Anna M. King

Reviewed and submitted by: Fred Huntington

Cultural Resources Report 2016-39

July 8, 2016 Project Number: 1771.09

WestLand Resources, Inc.  4001 E. Paradise Falls Drive  Tucson, Arizona 85712  5202069585

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 1 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

1. REPORT TITLE

1a. Report Title: A Cultural Resources Inventory of 2.1 Acres at the Corner of Oracle Road and Blacklidge Drive, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona: The Miracle Pointe Apartments Survey 1b. Report Author(s): Anna M. King 1c. Date: July 8, 2016 1d. Report No.: 2016-39

2. PROJECT REGISTRATION/PERMITS 2a. ASM Accession Number: n/a 2b. AAA Permit Number: n/a 2c. ASLD Lease Application Number(s): n/a 2d. Other Permit Number(s): n/a

3. ORGANIZATION/CONSULTING FIRM

3a. Name: WestLand Resources, Inc. 3b. Internal Project Number: 1771.09 3c. Internal Project Name: COT #16-14 Miracle Pointe Apartments Survey 3d. Contact Name: Frederick W. Huntington 3e. Contact Address: 4001 East Paradise Falls Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85712 3f. Contact Phone: (520) 206-9585 3g. Contact Email: [email protected]

4. SPONSOR/LEAD AGENCY 4a. Sponsor: City of Tucson 4b. Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 4c. Agency Project Number(s): COT #16-14 4d. Agency Project Name: Miracle Pointe Apartments Cultural Resources Survey 4e. Funding Source(s): Federal; municipal 4f. Other Involved Agencies: City of Tucson 4g. Applicable Regulations: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. §300101, et seq. (formerly 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.)

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 2 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

5. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR UNDERTAKING: The City of Tucson retained WestLand Resources, Inc. (WestLand), to conduct a cultural resources inventory prior to the proposed construction of the Miracle Pointe apartment complex on a parcel at the intersection of Oracle Road and Blacklidge Drive in the city of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Construction plans include the construction of 34 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom single-story units in an attached townhouse configuration, landscaped and fenced common areas, walkways, paved parking areas, and a 2,500-square-foot community building, along with associated grading and site preparation. The project is being funded, in part, by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and is therefore considered a federal action subject to Section 106 Review under the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. §300101, et seq. (formerly 16 U.S.C. §470, et seq.). This report complies with the Arizona Antiquities Act reporting standards and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office guidelines that were revised in January 2016.

6. PROJECT AREA/AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The approximately 2.1-acre project area (Pima County Assessor’s Parcel No. 107-12-170F) is located at 2940–2960 North Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona 85705. More specifically, it is located within Township 13 South, Range 13 East, a portion of Section 36, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian (Tucson North 7.5′ USGS quadrangle).

7. PROJECT LOCATION

7a. Address: 2940–2960 North Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona 85705 7b. Route: n/a 7c. Mileposts Limits: n/a 7d. Nearest City/Town: Tucson 7e. County: Pima 7f. Project Locator UTM: 502082 mE 3569374 mN 7g. NAD: 83 7h. Zone: 12 7i. Baseline & Meridian: Gila and Salt River 7j. USGS Quadrangle(s): Tucson North 7k. Legal Description(s): Township 13 South, Range 13 East, a portion of Section 36

8. SURVEY AREA 8a. Total Acres: 2.1 8b. Survey Area:

1. Land 2. Total Acres 3. Total Acres Not 4. Justification for Jurisdiction Surveyed Surveyed Areas Not Surveyed Private 2.1 0 n/a

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 3 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

9. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXTS

9a. Landform: The project area is located in the northwest-central Tucson Basin on the dissected distal bajada emanating north-northwestward from the Santa Rita Mountains.

9b. Elevation: 2,355 feet above sea level

9c. Surrounding Topographic Features: The project area is located 3.5 miles north-northeast of Sentinel Peak, 8 miles south-southwest of Pusch Ridge, 17 miles west of the Rincon Mountains, and 27 miles northwest of the Santa Rita Mountains.

9d. Nearest Drainage: The Santa Cruz River is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project area and the Rillito River is 2.3 miles to the north. The confluence of these two major drainages is 5.6 miles northwest of the project area.

9e. Local Geology: The local surficial geology is composed of Quaternary surficial deposits that are up to 2 million years old (Arizona Geological Survey 2016).

9f. Vegetation: The vegetation in the project area is very sparse and has been affected by recent land development. Prior to development, this portion of the Tucson Basin would have contained vegetation typical of the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desertscrub biotic province (D. Brown 1994), including mesquite (Prosopis sp.), palo verde (Cercidium microphyllum), creosote (Larrea tridentata), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), prickly pear (Opuntia phaeacantha), fish-hook barrel (Ferocactus wislizenii), various cholla species (Opuntia sp.), and numerous seasonal grasses and forbs. Currently, the project area is sparsely vegetated with sapling trees (palo verde and mesquite), low shrubs (desert broom [Baccharis sarothroides]), and annual weeds and grasses.

9g. Soils/Deposition: Generally, the substratum of this landform consists of mixed sandy and gravelly alluvium deposits. However, the parcel has been subjected to recent land modification, including grading, cutting, filling, and lifting, such that the entirety of the project area has been either graded down to sterile sediments or covered with redeposited material. No original grade or native substratum remains.

9h. Buried Deposits: The potential for buried cultural deposits is low.

9i. Justification: No surficial evidence was observed to suggest the potential for buried deposits, and recent land modification has likely disturbed or removed any potential buried deposits that may have once been present.

10. BUILT ENVIRONMENT: No standing structures are present within the project area, although according to recent aerial photographs, plumbing and sewer hookups for an earlier abandoned housing project were apparently installed in the late 2000s. The parcel immediately to the south contains a restaurant constructed in 1953. The parcel to the east contains buildings constructed in the 1980s. Several buildings from the 1940s are located immediately north of the parcel; and immediately to the west are Oracle Road and buildings and structures constructed in the 1950s. No current National Register of Historic Places-listed properties or Historic Districts are located within the project area or in its vicinity.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 4 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

11. INVENTORY CLASS COMPLETED 11a. Class I Inventory: ☐ 11b. Researcher(s):

11c. Class II Survey: ☐ 11d. Sampling Strategy:

11e. Class III Inventory: ☒

12. BACKGROUND RESEARCH SOURCES 12a. AZSITE: ☒ 12b. ASM Archaeological Records Office: ☐

12c. SHPO Inventories and/or SHPO Library: ☐

12d. NRHP Database: ☒ 12e. ADOT Portal: ☐

12f. GLO Maps: Plat for Township 13 South, Range 13 East, officially filed in 1871. AZ140130S0130E0-3001 12g. Land-Managing Agency Files: n/a 12h. Tribal Cultural Resources Files: n/a 12i. Local Government Websites: Tucson Historic Preservation Web Map: https://maps2.tucsonaz.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=histor icproperties 12j. Other: 1905 Tucson 30′ USGS quadrangle, 1948 Mount Lemmon 15′ USGS quadrangle, 1957 Tucson North 7.5′ USGS quadrangle; historical aerial photographs from 1936, 1941, 1958, and 1967

13. BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS

13a. Previous Projects Within Study Area*:

1. Project 2. Project Name 3. Author(s) 4. Year Reference No. Projects within Project Area 1981-53.ASM Villa del Sol Apartments Urban, Sharon F. 1981a 1996-91.ASM Miracle Mile-Oracle Road Woodall, Gregory R. 1996 2003-288.ASM Balboa/Laguna Survey Diehl, Allison Cohen 2003a

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 5 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

1. Project 2. Project Name 3. Author(s) 4. Year Reference No. Projects within Buffer TG+E Northern Tucson Transmission Line 1979-39.ASM Rozen, Kenneth 1979 Survey 1980-146.ASM Grantway Gardens, West Grant Road Urban, Sharon F. 1980 1981-6.ASM Sandcastle Urban, Sharon F. 1981b 1982-146.ASM Estrella Norte, Stone and Glenn Area Urban, Sharon F. 1982 Archaeological Survey of Glenn-Fairview 1991-88.ASM Eppley, Lisa G. 1991 Main Replacement 1994-279.ASM Oracle-Tucson 115kV Transmission Line Brown, Gary M. 1994 1996-102.ASM Grant-First Survey Swartz, Deborah L. 1996 1998-267.ASM Miracle Manor Survey Diehl, Allison Cohen 1998 2000-284.ASM Moratorium Streets Survey Diehl, Allison Cohen 2000 Touchin, Jewel, and 2003-231.ASM Oracle Road, Prince-Miracle Mile 2003a Mark Brodbeck Touchin, Jewel, and 2003-232.ASM I-10, Miracle Mile-Oracle Highway 2003b Mark Brodbeck 2003-906.ASM La Paloma Neighborhood Center Survey Diehl, Allison Cohen 2003b 2004-817.ASM Ghost Ranch Lodge Survey Diehl, Allison Cohen 2005 2005-518.ASM Oracle/Kelso Signal Survey Cook, Patricia M. 2005 2006-872.ASM Jacinto Park Survey Diehl, Allison Cohen 2006 2007-858.ASM RTA Bus Pullout Survey Doak, David P. 2008 *Note: A 0.5-mile buffer was used to define the study area.

13b. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within Study Area: 1. Site 4. Eligibility 5. Associated 2. Affiliation 3. Site Type Number/Name Status Reference(s) Sites Within Buffer AZ BB:5:123(ASM) – Electrical Oracle-Tucson Euroamerican n/a Touchin (2008) Transmission Line Transmission Line AZ BB:9:41(ASM) – Transportation: Canada del Oro-Camp Euroamerican n/a Tucker (2009) Wagon Road Grant Wagon Road AZ BB:9:300(ASM) – Hohokam Artifact Scatter n/a Woodall (1996) Sow’s Ear Site AZ BB:9:393(ASM) – Historical Motor Euroamerican n/a Diehl (2005) Ghost Ranch Lodge Court AZ FF:9:17(ASM) – Transportation: Euroamerican n/a Allan et al. (2004) U.S. Highway 80 Highway

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 6 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

13c. Historic Buildings/Districts/Neighborhoods: 1. Property Name or 2. Year 3. Eligibility Status Address Pending – Ruled “Possibly Miracle Mile Historic District ca. 1920s–1966 Eligible” by Arizona State Historic Preservation Office

14. CULTURAL CONTEXTS 14a. Prehistoric Culture: Archaic, Hohokam 14b. Protohistoric Culture: O’odham, Apache 14c. Indigenous Historic Culture: O’odham, Apache 14d. Euro-American Culture: Anglo-American, Spanish, Mexican-American, Asian- American, African-American

15. FIELD SURVEY PERSONNEL 15a. Principal Investigator: William L. Deaver 15b. Field Supervisor: Gaylen Tinsley 15c. Crew: n/a 15d. Fieldwork Date(s): July 7, 2016

16. SURVEY METHODS 16a. Transect Intervals: 20 m apart 16b. Coverage (%): 100 16c. Site Recording Criteria: Arizona State Museum 16d. Ground Surface Visibility: Native ground surface visibility: 0 percent 16e. Observed Disturbances: The project area has been subjected to recent land modification, including grading, cutting, filling, and lifting, such that the entirety of the project area has either been graded down to sterile sediments or covered with redeposited material. No original grade or native substratum remains. No standing structures are present within the project area, although according to recent aerial photographs, plumbing and sewer hookups for an abandoned housing project were apparently installed in the late 2000s. Temporary fencing has been installed around the perimeter of the project area. Modern trash is found scattered throughout the area.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 7 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

17. FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 17a. No Cultural Resources Identified: ☒ 17b. Isolated Occurrences (IOs) Only: ☐ 17c. Number of IOs Recorded: 0 17d. Table of IOs:

1. IO Number 2. Description 3. Date Range 4. UTMs None

18. COMMENTS: The cultural resources inventory conducted on July 7, 2016, resulted in the identification of no archaeological sites and no isolated occurrences of cultural materials. Historical map and aerial photograph research revealed previous uses of the project area parcel. The 1905 Tucson 30′ USGS quadrangle showed an east-west-oriented road intersecting the project area—part of a vast network of roads connecting the areas north of Tucson to Old Fort Lowell to the east and the railroad line and the Santa Cruz River to the west. No traces of this road were found in the project area during the field survey. Subsequent USGS quadrangles show this part of Tucson as “urbanized” and omit detail about specific structures in the project area. However, historical aerial photographs from 1936, 1941, and 1958 show a series of structures in the northwestern and central portions of the project area. The configuration of the structures and their location along two major historical highway corridors (US Highway 80, along Oracle Road, and the historical route of Arizona State Highway 84 along Miracle Mile) suggest that the structures were part of a motor court with an associated owner/operator residence. A historical postcard published in a historical context statement for the Miracle Mile Corridor prepared for the City of Tucson Historic Preservation Office and Department of Urban Planning and Design (Clinco 2009:19) shows a Pueblo Revival-style motor court called Ransom’s Court that was once located at 2944 North Oracle Road. The motor court was apparently demolished in the late 1950s or early 1960s as the 1967 aerial photograph shows the project area as a vacant lot. No traces of the motor court were found in the project area during the current survey, likely due to the recent earthmoving activities there. No other historical features such as roads, utilities, or structures that might be considered sites are present in the project area. Additionally, the project area is included within the boundary of the proposed Miracle Mile National Register Historic District. According to Jonathan Mabry, Historic Preservation Officer for the City of Tucson, the District has not yet been listed on the National Register as it has not been determined eligible by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office. Nonetheless, the project area parcel is considered a non-contributing element to this District. WestLand therefore recommends that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed project and that the proposed project may proceed with no further archaeological work. WestLand provides the general recommendation that all ground-disturbing activities have the potential to unearth archaeological sites or human remains and that if any such discoveries are found, they must be treated in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute §41-865.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 8 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

19. ATTACHMENTS

19a. Project Location Map: ☒ Figure 1. Vicinity map

19b. Land Jurisdiction Map: ☒ Figure 2. Project location showing surface management

19c. Background Research Map(s): ☒ Figure 3. Previous archaeological sites and surveys within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the project area

19d. GLO Map(s): ☒ Figure 4. Historical GLO plat Figure 5. Tucson 30′ USGS quadrangle (1905) Figure 6. Mt. Lemmon 15′ USGS quadrangle (1957) Figure 7. Tucson North 7.5′ USGS quadrangle (1957)

19e. References: ☒ Page 9

SECTION 20. CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION:

I certify the information provided herein has been reviewed for content and accuracy and all work meets applicable agency standards.

Date: July 8, 2016 Signature

Frederick W. Huntington Archaeology Program Director Title

SECTION 21. DISCOVERY CLAUSE:

In the event that previously unreported cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work must immediately cease within 30 meters (100 feet) until a qualified archaeologist has documented the discovery and evaluated its eligibility for the Arizona or National Register of Historic Places in consultation with the lead agency, the SHPO, and Tribes, as appropriate. Work must not resume in this area without approval of the lead agency.

If human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work must immediately cease within 30 meters (100 feet) of the discovery and the area must be secured. The Arizona State Museum, lead agency, SHPO, and appropriate Tribes must be notified of the discovery. All discoveries will be treated in accordance with NAGPRA (Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) or Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 41-844 and A.R.S. § 41-865), as appropriate, and work must not resume in this area without authorization from ASM and the lead agency.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 9 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

REFERENCES: Allan James M., Jenni Price, Aimee Arrigoni, and Kyle Kearney 2004 Cultural Resource Survey Report KMEP Line Section 53/54 SCC Digs Project Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Arizona. William Self Associates, Inc., Orinda.

Arizona Geological Survey 2016 Geologic Map of Arizona. Web Application. Available from http://data.azgs.az.gov/ geologic-map-of-arizona/. Accessed on July 7, 2016.

Brown, David E. (ed.) 1994 Biotic Communities of the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Brown, Gary M. 1994 Cultural Resource Inventory of Western Area Power Administration on the Oracle-Tucson 115kV Transmission Line, Pinal and Pima Counties, Arizona. Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc., Boulder.

Clinco, Demion 2009 Historic Miracle Mile, Tucson’s Northern Auto Gateway: A Historic Context Study for the Oracle Area. Frontier Consulting, Tucson.

Cook, Patricia M. 2005 Cultural Resources Survey for a Pedestrian Signal Installation at the Intersection of Oracle Road and Kelso Road, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 05-149. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Diehl, Allison Cohen 1998 Archeological Survey of Miracle Manor, Tucson, Arizona. Letter Report No. 98-171. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Moratorium Streets Cast-iron Main Rehabilitation Project, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 00-134. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2003a Cultural Resources Survey of a 3.3-Acre Parcel at the Southeastern Corner of Balboa Avenue and Laguna Street, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 02-186. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2003b Cultural Resources Survey of a Property at 240 West Navajo Road, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 03-160. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the Ghost Ranch Lodge, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 04-162. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

2006 Cultural Resources Survey at Jacinto Park, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Project Report No. 06-165. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 10 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

Doak, David P. 2008 A Class III Cultural Resource Survey for a Proposed Bus Pullout on the Northbound Side of Oracle Road, North of Glenn Street, in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Report No. 2007-150. Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Tucson.

Eppley, Lisa G. 1991 Archaeological Survey of Glenn-Fairview Line Replacement. Letter Report No. 91-126. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Rozen, Kenneth 1979 The Archaeological Survey of the Northern Tucson 138kV Transmission Line System: The Northern Tucson Basin and Lower Santa Cruz Valley. Archaeological Series No. 132. Arizona State Museum Cultural Resources Management Section, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Swartz, Deborah L. 1996 Archaeological Surveys of Several Road Segments near First Avenue and Grant Road. Letter Report No. 96-124. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.

Touchin, Jewel 2008 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of Easements and New Rights-of-way for La Canada Drive from Ina Road to Calle Concordia in Pima County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 08- 03. HDR Engineering, Phoenix.

Touchin, Jewel, and Mark Brodbeck 2003a A Cultural Resources Survey of Temporary Construction Easements and a Proposed Parcel of New Right-of-way along the West Side of State Route 77 (Oracle Road), between Milepost 69.55 and Milepost 70.30 (Miracle Mile Road to Prince Road) in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 03-05. HDR Engineering, Phoenix.

2003b A Cultural Resources Survey of 38 Temporary Construction Easements and Nine Proposed Parcels of New Right-of-way along State Route 77 (Miracle Mile Road), between Milepost 68.36 and 69.55 in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 03-06. HDR Engineering, Phoenix.

Tucker, David B. 2009 Archaeological Records Search and Survey for Amphi Neighborhood Light Project, Phase 2, Navajo Road, Oracle Road to Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson.

Urban. Sharon F. 1980 Grantway Gardens, West Grant Road. Clearinghouse Project 80-85-0299. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1981a Villa del Sol Apartments Survey. Clearinghouse Project 81-85-0117. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 11 SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM

1981b Sandcastle. Clearinghouse Project 81-85-0006. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

1982 Estrella Norte, Stone and Glenn Area. Clearinghouse Project 82-85-0167. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Woodall, Gregory R. 1996 Cultural Resources Survey of Miracle Mile Road (State Route 77), between the Rillito Railroad Overpass and Oracle Road, within the City of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Archaeological Research Services, Inc., Tempe.

January 2016 (Rev. 1) Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig1_VicinityMap.mxd Date: 07/06/2016 User: thackett ARIZONA PROJECT VICINITY

10 FLAGSTAFF ¨¦§

PHOENIX

YUMA

TUCSON

PROJECT LOCATION

¨¦§10 ¨¦§19 Approximate Scale 1 Inch = 10 Miles

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Tucson North (1996) USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Data Source: ArcGIS Online World Streetmap 0 1,500 3,000 Legend Feet 0 750 1,500 WestLand Resources Meters ± Project Area Figure 1. Vicinity map Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig2_ProjectLocationMap.mxd Date: 07/05/2016 User: thackett Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013

W Prince Rd

W Fort Lowell Rd

N 3569374 N 3569379 E 502082 E 502221 E Blacklidge Dr W Miracle Mile

N 3569283 N 3569261 E Laguna St E 502108 E 502222

E Glenn St

n O

W Grant Rd ¨¦§10

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Tucson North (1996) USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Data Source: Pima County GIS Legend

Project_Area 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Surface Management 0 500 1,000 WestLand Resources Meters ± Private Land (No Color) Figure 2. Project location showing surface management Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig3_ClassI_Sites+Surveys.mxd Date: 07/05/2016 User: thackett Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013

1979-39.ASM

1994-279.ASM

2003-231.ASM

2003-906.ASM

AZ BB:9:41(ASM) AZ FF:9:17(ASM)

AZ BB:5:123(ASM) AZ BB:9:300(ASM) 1996-102.ASM 2003-288.ASM 1996-91.ASM 2003-232.ASM 1981-53.ASM 1982-146.ASM 1996-102.ASM

AZ BB:9:393(ASM) 2007-858.ASM 2004-817.ASM

1981-6.ASM 1991-88..ASM

1980-146.ASM

1996-102.ASM 1998-267.ASM 2005-518.ASM

1991-88.ASM 2000-284.ASM 2006-872.ASM ¨¦§10 1996-102.ASM

2000-284.ASM

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Tucson North (1996) USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Data Source: Pima County GIS Legend Project Area 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Archaeological Site 0 500 1,000 WestLand Resources Meters ± Previous Survey Figure 3. Previous archaeological sites and surveys within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the project area Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig4_GLOplat.mxd Date: 07/06/2016 User: thackett Service Layer Credits:

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Image Source: T13S R13E GLO Plat (5-26-1871)

0 1,500 3,000 Feet Legend 0 750 1,500 WestLand Resources Meters ± Project Area Figure 4. Historical GLO plat Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig5_1905Tucson30minQuad.mxd Date: 07/06/2016 User: thackett Service Layer Credits:

Project Location

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Image Source: Tucson 30' USGS quadrangle (1905)

1 Legend Scale WestLand Resources 125000 ± Project Area Figure 5. Tucson 30' USGS quadrangle (1905) Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig6_1957MtLemmon15minQuad.mxd Date: 07/06/2016 User: thackett Service Layer Credits:

Project Location

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Image Source: Mt. Lemmon 15' USGS quadrangle (1957)

1 Legend Scale WestLand Resources 62500 ± Project Area Figure 6. Mt. Lemmon 15' USGS quadrangle (1957) Path: M:\Jobs\1700's\1771.09\ARC\MXD\FIGURES\Fig7_1957NorthTucson7.5minQuad.mxd Date: 07/06/2016 User: thackett Service Layer Credits:

Project Location

T13S, R13E, Portion of Section 36, Pima County, Arizona Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 12 Image Source: Tucson North 7.5' USGS quadrangle (1957)

0 1,000 2,000 Feet Legend 0 500 1,000 WestLand Resources Meters ± Project Area Figure 7. Tucson North 7.5' USGS quadrangle (1957) APPENDIX K - CONTINUED CONSULTATIONS (last page is SHPO Clearance and MOA for that clearance):

Tribes Contacted:

The following request went to all tribes: Included with Tribal communications on 7/21/16 were the following attachments:

LOCATION MAP

The Assessor Aerial above is the APN 107-12-170F and highlighted in yellow. The Street map location referenced below 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road is the location equivalent of 375 W Blacklidge, Tucson, Arizona

The location of the project site is referenced as 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road and is the location equivalent of 375 W Blacklidge. Both address locations are fully and legally identified by Pima County Assessor Parcel Number 107-12-170 F , in Tucson. Pima County AZ 85705.

View from corner of Oracle and Blackridge looking across about 75% of the lot. View from Oracle (street in the foreground) looking across entire lot.

View from Blaboa and Blacklidgelooking south across lot. Those Tribes who made a reply supported no adverse cultural or historic affect at this location:

Tohono O’odham Nation response: White Mountain Apache Tribe response: Fort Still Apache response: City of Tucson Preservation acting on behalf of SHPO per Certified Local Government Status concurrence.

NOTE: State Museum Concurrence with no adverse affect is included in the Cultural Resources Survey.

All other tribal contacts did not reply after more than 30 days from notification of requests for consultation on 7/21/16

ATTACHMENT V - Noise (CEST Level Reviews) 2940-2960 N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona, 85705 Review: October 20, 2016

General requirements Legislation Regulation HUD’s noise regulations protect Noise Control Act of 1972 Title 24 CFR 51 residential properties from Subpart B excessive noise exposure. HUD General Services Administration encourages mitigation as Federal Management Circular appropriate. 75-2: “Compatible Land Uses at Federal Airfields” References https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/noise-abatement-and- control

1. What activities does your project involve? Check all that apply: 9 New construction for residential use NOTE: HUD assistance to new construction projects is generally prohibited if they are located in an Unacceptable zone, and HUD discourages assistance for new construction projects in Normally Unacceptable zones. See 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3) for further details. à Continue to Question 4.

: Rehabilitation of an existing residential property NOTE: For modernization projects in all noise zones, HUD encourages mitigation to reduce levels to acceptable compliance standards. See 24 CFR 51 Subpart B for further details. à Continue to Question 2.

9 A research demonstration project which does not result in new construction or reconstruction, interstate, land sales registration, or any timely emergency assistance under disaster assistance provisions or appropriations which are provided to save lives, protect property, protect public health and safety, remove debris and wreckage, or assistance that has the effect of restoring facilities substantially as they existed prior to the disaster à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.

9 None of the above à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. 2. Do you have standardized noise attenuation measures that apply to all modernization and/or minor rehabilitation projects, such as the use of double glazed windows or extra insulation? 9 Yes Indicate the type of measures that will apply (check all that apply): 9 Improved building envelope components (better windows and doors, strengthened sheathing, insulation, sealed gaps, etc.) 9 Redesigned building envelope (more durable or substantial materials, increased air gap, resilient channels, staggered wall studs, etc.) 9 Other Explain:

à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below and provide any supporting documentation.

: No à Continue to Question 3.

3. Complete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in the vicinity (1000’ from a major road, 3000’ from a railroad, or 15 miles from an airport). Describe findings of the Preliminary Screening:

HUD NOISE CALCULATIONS PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING NOISE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION - Calculated at 69 DNL noise sources.

à Continue to Question 6.

4. Complete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in the vicinity (1000’ from a major road, 3000’ from a railroad, or 15 miles from an airport). Indicate the findings of the Preliminary Screening below: 9 There are no noise generators found within the threshold distances above. à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing the location of the project relative to any noise generators.

9 Noise generators were found within the threshold distances. à Continue to Question 5.

5. Complete the Noise Assessment Guidelines to quantify the noise exposure. Indicate the findings of the Noise Assessment below: 9 Acceptable: (65 decibels or less; the ceiling may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in §24 CFR 51.105(a))

Indicate noise level here:

à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis.

9 Normally Unacceptable: (Above 65 decibels but not exceeding 75 decibels; the floor may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in 24 CFR 51.105(a))

Indicate noise level here:

Is the project in a largely undeveloped area1? 9 No àYour project requires completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). Elevate this review to an EA-level review. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. Continue to Question 6.

9 Yes àYour project requires completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). Elevate this review to an EIS-level review. Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. Continue to Question 6.

1 A largely undeveloped area means the area within 2 miles of the project site is less than 50 percent developed with urban uses and does not have water and sewer capacity to serve the project. 9 Unacceptable: (Above 75 decibels)

Indicate noise level here:

Your project requires completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to 51.104(b)(1)(i). You may either complete an EIS or provide a waiver signed by the appropriate authority. Indicate your choice:

9 Convert to an EIS à Provide noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. Continue to Question 6.

9 Provide waiver à Provide an Environmental Impact Statement waiver from the Certifying Officer or the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development per 24 CFR 51.104(b)(2) and noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis. Continue to Question 6.

6. HUD strongly encourages mitigation be used to eliminate adverse noise impacts. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. This information will be automatically included in the Mitigation summary for the environmental review. NONE : Mitigation as follows will be implemented: 2X6 exterior walls with R-21 Batt insulations in cavities and 1 ½" foam insulation with Stucco Finish on exterior walls.

Maximum 4' X 4' sliding dual pane windows, Low-E glass, fully sealed and weatherized.

Solid cord wood access/egress doors with rubberized threshold and full weatherstripping.

Percentage of wall space that would be composed of windows max 5%

All units are central heating and cooled. à Provide drawings, specifications, and other materials as needed to describe the project’s noise mitigation measures. Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

Attached are site preliminary design featuring setbacks and building 9 pl acNoem mitentigat to ion“sh aisdow necessary.” interior areas from noise effect. Explain why mitigation will not be made here:

à Continue to the Worksheet Summary.

Worksheet Summary Compliance Determination Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: · Map panel numbers and dates · Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates · Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers · Any additional requirements specific to your region

Full Review Material including HUD noise assessment work sheet & Figure 19 mitigations in following attachments with noise count sources and HUD noise calculation chart.

Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? 9 Yes : No Provided 10 year projections as a special streets location run by Aichong Sun, Modeling Manager for PAG, 520-792-1093 on October 20, 2016 Traffic volume projection to 2045:

* Note Miracle Mile and Oracle Road is an uncontrolled intersection.

Daily Traffic Volume Street Summary:

Oracle Road: 45,100, 40 MPH, 1,804 truck, Distance 276 feet, Intersection 276 feet Glenn Street: 2,900, 25 MPH, 116 truck, Distance 928 feet Fort Lowell Road: 23,000, 40 MPH, 920 truck, Distance 1,370 feet

Gradient for roads less than 1% SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN will enhance noise reductions (distance calculations):

Oracle Road is highlighted by red arrow, Broken black line is the distance measurement from habitable building to center of Oracle. Measurement of building distance from Oracle Road:

Black broken line is the measured distance from the first habitable buildings to the center of Oracle Road.

Design plans would develop the units so access/egress points do not face Oracle Road.

Design incorporates parking space between units and Oracle to further set the development further from the noise source. Measurement of building distance from Oracle Road:

928 feet to center of Glenn Street. Measurement of building distance from Fort Lowell Road:

1,370 feet to center of Glenn Street.

NOTE: Figure 19 Attenuation Measures were calculated based on preliminary reviews which indicated maximum potential DNL of 72 DNL. Those mitigations would still apply in this building design and are attached.

APPENDIX M – SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER

The project need not be referred to EPA for evaluation according to the HUD-EPA (Region IX) Sole Source Aquifer Memorandum of Understanding of 1990. The project is located in the Upper Santa Cruz & Avra Basin aquifer. The location is currently served by a municipal water and sewer system and will have no impact on the aquifer. Memorandum and map on file.

http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/ssa.html Web link verified October 13, 2016

APPENDIX-N WETLANDS

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 10/20/16

Miracle Point Apartments IPaC Trust Resources Report Generated August 16, 2016 11:49 AM MDT, IPaC v3.0.8 IPaC Trust Resources Report Wetlands Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. DATA EXCLUSIONS Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

September 1, 2016 https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/wild-and-scenic-rivers

EJSCREEN Report (Version 2016) 1 mile Ring Centered at 32.261023,-110.978073, ARIZONA, EPA Region 9 Approximate Population: 17,100 Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14 Miracle Point State EPA Region USA Selected Variables Percentile Percentile Percentile EJ Indexes EJ Index for PM2.5 80 66 82 EJ Index for Ozone 80 74 89 EJ Index for NATA* Diesel PM 89 89 94 EJ Index for NATA* Air Toxics Cancer Risk 88 83 92 EJ Index for NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index 91 83 92 EJ Index for Traffic Proximity and Volume 95 92 97 EJ Index for Lead Paint Indicator 90 74 85 EJ Index for Superfund Proximity 79 66 82 EJ Index for RMP Proximity 73 56 76 EJ Index for Hazardous Waste Proximity 66 47 68 EJ Index for Water Discharger Proximity 87 87 90

This report shows the values for environmental and demographic indicators and EJSCREEN indexes. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. The years for which the data are available, and the methods used, vary across these indicators. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. August 16, 2016 1/3 EJSCREEN Report (Version 2016) 1 mile Ring Centered at 32.261023,-110.978073, ARIZONA, EPA Region 9

Approximate Population: 17,100 Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14 Miracle Point

Sites reporting to EPA Superfund NPL 0 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) 0 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 0

August 16, 2016 2/3 EJSCREEN Report (Version 2016) 1 mile Ring Centered at 32.261023,-110.978073, ARIZONA, EPA Region 9 Approximate Population: 17,100 Input Area (sq. miles): 3.14 Miracle Point EPA %ile in Value State %ile in USA %ile in Selected Variables Region EPA Avg. State Avg. USA Avg. Region Environmental Indicators Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 in µg/m3) 7.09 7.62 33 9.37 13 9.32 9 Ozone (ppb) 50.8 54.8 7 51 46 47.4 67 NATA* Diesel PM (µg/m3) 2.17 1.11 90 0.978 90-95th 0.937 90-95th NATA* Cancer Risk (lifetime risk per million) 64 44 98 43 95-100th 40 95-100th NATA* Respiratory Hazard Index 3.1 1.5 96 2 80-90th 1.8 90-95th Traffic Proximity and Volume (daily traffic count/distance to road) 3500 830 91 1100 91 590 96 Lead Paint Indicator (% Pre-1960 Housing) 0.25 0.091 87 0.24 60 0.3 55 Superfund Proximity (site count/km distance) 0.056 0.078 48 0.15 41 0.13 47 RMP Proximity (facility count/km distance) 0.11 0.39 32 0.57 21 0.43 30 Hazardous Waste Proximity (facility count/km distance) 0 0.064 30 0.11 19 0.072 26 Water Discharger Proximity (facility count/km distance) 0.26 0.19 81 0.2 81 0.31 71 Demographic Indicators DemographicDemographic Indicators Index 72% 41% 84 47% 82 36% 89 Minority Population 68% 43% 77 58% 58 37% 78 Low Income Population 75% 39% 91 36% 93 35% 95 Linguistically Isolated Population 13% 5% 87 9% 74 5% 87 Population With Less Than High School Education 31% 14% 84 17% 78 14% 89 Population Under 5 years of age 7% 7% 54 7% 56 6% 60 Population over 64 years of age 11% 15% 54 13% 53 14% 42 * The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is EPA's ongoing, comprehensive evaluation of air toxics in the United States. EPA developed the NATA to prioritize air toxics, emission sources, and locations of interest for further study. It is important to remember that NATA provides broad estimates of health risks over geographic areas of the country, not definitive risks to specific individuals or locations. More information on the NATA analysis can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment.

For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

EJSCREEN is a screening tool for pre-decisional use only. It can help identify areas that may warrant additional consideration, analysis, or outreach. It does not provide a basis for decision-making, but it may help identify potential areas of EJ concern. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see EJSCREEN documentation for discussion of these issues before using reports. This screening tool does not provide data on every environmental impact and demographic factor that may be relevant to a particular location. EJSCREEN outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge before taking any action to address potential EJ concerns. August 16, 2016 3/3 APPENDIX P - Environmental Justice (CEST and EA) Miracle Point Apartments HEROS Format Analysis August 16, 2016

General requirements Legislation Regulation Determine if the project creates adverse Executive Order 12898 environmental impacts upon a low-income or minority community. If it does, engage the community in meaningful participation about mitigating the impacts or move the project.

References https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/environmental-justice

HUD strongly encourages starting the Environmental Justice analysis only after all other laws and authorities, including Environmental Assessment factors if necessary, have been completed.

1. Were any adverse environmental impacts identified in any other compliance review portion of this project’s total environmental review? 9Yes à Continue to Question 2.

:No à Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below.

2. Were these adverse environmental impacts disproportionately high for low- income and/or minority communities? 9Yes Explain:

à Continue to Question 3. Provide any supporting documentation.

9No Explain: à Continue to the Worksheet Summary and provide any supporting documentation.

3. All adverse impacts should be mitigated. Explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. 9Mitigation as follows will be implemented:

à Continue to Question 4.

9No mitigation is necessary. Explain why mitigation will not be made here:

à Continue to Question 4.

4. Describe how the affected low-income or minority community was engaged or meaningfully involved in the decision on what mitigation actions, if any, will be taken.

à Continue to the Worksheet Summary and provide any supporting documentation. Worksheet Summary Compliance Determination Provide a clear description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: · Map panel numbers and dates · Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates · Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers · Any additional requirements specific to your region

A review was conducted at http://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/index.html for Environmental Justice Criterial which may have an adverse effect on the proposed undertaking. This report shows environmental, demographic, and EJ indicator values. It shows environmental and demographic raw data (e.g., the estimated concentration of ozone in the air), and also shows what percentile each raw data value represents. These percentiles provide perspective on how the selected block group or buffer area compares to the entire state, EPA region, or nation. For example, if a given location is at the 95th percentile nationwide, this means that only 5 percent of the US population has a higher block group value than the average person in the location being analyzed. Areas of concern are highlighted in red in this review. This project will not be expected to result in an adverse environmental justice impact.

This review has evaluated Environmental Justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Per the EPA screening, this review is intended to provide equity, where everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? 9 Yes : No

Preparer Signature: ______Date: August 16, 2016 Mark C. Appleby Environmental Review Consultant, working with City of Tucson, Arizona